US 10685149B2

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me search for the specific claims of this patent and any IPR/CAFC proceedings directly tied to it.

I have good context on the patent's metadata and litigation. Now let me confirm the independent claims of US10685149B2 specifically.

US 10685149 B2 — Patent Summary

Important scope note: I searched specifically for patent number 10685149B2 and its family/litigation identifiers. I found no CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket entry naming 10685149 itself. The Feb. 3, 2026 CAFC decision you may have seen in the news (Eagle View v. Nearmap, No. 24-1488) concerns different patents — US 8670961B2 and US 8078436B2 — not 10685149B2, and should not be attributed to this patent.

Bibliographic data (verified against Google Patents / Unified Patents / Justia records)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10685149B2/en ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10685149 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/10685149

Abstract (verbatim)

"User interface systems and methods for roof estimation are described. Example embodiments include a roof estimation system that provides a user interface configured to facilitate roof model generation based on one or more aerial images of a building roof. In one embodiment, roof model generation includes image registration, image lean correction, roof section pitch determination, wire frame model construction, and/or roof model review. The described user interface provides user interface controls that may be manipulated by an operator to perform at least some of the functions of roof model generation. In one embodiment, the user interface provides user interface controls that facilitate the determination of pitch of one or more sections of a building roof."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent describes computer/network-based tools for remotely estimating roof construction/repair jobs. A "Roof Estimation System" obtains one or more aerial images of a building (from aircraft, satellite, street-level/boom-mounted cameras), registers those images to a shared 3D reference grid, lets an operator trace/identify roof features (edges, ridges, valleys, planar sections), determines each roof section's pitch using interactive on-screen tools, builds a 3D wire-frame model, and generates an annotated roof-estimate report showing edge lengths, section areas, and pitches (e.g., inches of rise per foot of run). The user interface concurrently projects operator-drawn features into multiple image views for accuracy feedback, and supports image "lean" correction (vertical-axis alignment).

Independent claims — overview with caveats

⚠️ Uncertainty disclosure: The full granted claim text of US10685149B2 was not reproduced in the authoritative sources available to me in these searches (the supplied Google Patents text and search snippets end before the claims section). The exact claim numbering and wording of this specific grant therefore cannot be stated verbatim with confidence. What follows is a plain-language description consistent with (a) the specification (Figs. 5A–5D, 10) and (b) the claim language of the immediate parent in the same family, US 9,129,376 (the "'376 patent"), whose independent claims were quoted in district-court filings in Eagle View Tech. v. Xactware/Verisk (D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025, Doc. 901) and the Nearmap Utah case (2:21-cv-00283). Treat the below as representative, not as verified verbatim claim text:

1. System claim (roof pitch determination via user-manipulated marker): A roof estimation system with at least one processor and memory storing instructions to: display an aerial image of a building roof having planar sections; overlay a pitch determination marker (e.g., a "protractor"-style tool with an adjustable arm) on the image; receive user manipulation aligning the marker with a planar roof section; calculate that section's pitch based on the marker's configuration relative to the registered image/reference grid; store the pitch; and generate/output a roof estimate report (top-plan views annotated with slope/area/edge lengths) for repair or construction of the roof.

2. Method claim(s) (parallel computer-implemented process): Likely recite the analogous steps — displaying an aerial image, displaying the pitch-determination marker, receiving the user's adjustment of the marker so it substantially aligns with a portion of a planar roof section, calculating the pitch from the adjustment, storing it, and generating/outputting the annotated roof estimate report.

3. Computer-readable medium claim (parallel): Likely a non-transitory storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform the same pitch-determination and report-generation method.

Dependent-claim themes (per the family/'376 litigation quotations): an envelope tool embodiment whose spine aligns with a ridge line and whose two surfaces are angled to lie atop two adjacent roof sections, with automatically updated pitch readouts; claims specifying the protractor-type marker; and registration-related refinements. Because I could not verify the exact claim set of the B2 grant, these dependent-feature descriptions should be treated as indicative only.

Litigation / CAFC docket status (as of searches performed)

• No CAFC 2026 appeal specifically for 10685149B2 was located. The only 2026 CAFC decision found involving EagleView aerial-roof patents is the Feb. 3, 2026 nonprecedential affirmance (No. 24-1488, consolidated 24-1549) covering the '961 and '436 patents — not this one.
• District court: Google Patents lists 10685149B2 in litigation — Utah District Court cases 2:22-cv-00215 and 2:21-cv-00283, and New Jersey District Court case 1:21-cv-10669 (per Unified Patents litigation data).
• Nearmap Utah case (2:21-cv-00283): asserts 10685149B2 among eight EagleView patents against Nearmap's MapBrowser/OpenSolar tools; stayed and administratively closed Aug. 25, 2025 pending USPTO and Federal Circuit proceedings (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-case-stayed/). No IPR final decision directed at 10685149's claims was identified in my searches, so I cannot confirm any PTAB validity challenge specific to this patent.

I'll search for litigation specifically involving US patent 10685149B2.

Let me verify the other two dockets tied to this patent number and check the current status of the Utah case.

Let me confirm which patents are asserted in the GAF cases and check the current status of both GAF matters and the Nearmap Utah case.

I have enough verified information to answer, though a few status points require caveats. Below is the litigation picture for US 10685149 B2 as best established from the search results available.

Confirmed litigation involving US 10685149 B2

Google Patents' litigation metadata for 10685149B2 identifies exactly three U.S. district-court actions (Unified Patents litigation data links), and each is corroborated below.

1. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc. — D. Utah, No. 2:21-cv-00283 (Judge Ted Stewart)

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: Nearmap US, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / case number: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2:21-cv-00283
• Filing date: May 4, 2021
• Patents: 10685149B2 is expressly listed among the eight asserted patents (US10528960B2, US8542880B2, US9514568B2, US10685149B2, US8593518B2, US8670961B2, US8209152B2, US9135737B2). Accused products: Nearmap MapBrowser and Nearmap on OpenSolar.
• Status: On August 25, 2025, Judge Stewart ordered all proceedings stayed and the case administratively closed pending outcomes at the USPTO (PTAB IPRs) and the Federal Circuit. No infringement or validity merits ruling was entered.
• Most recent development (with date caveat): A PRNewswire release dated May 27, 2026 — which post-dates the "current date" you gave (April 26, 2026) and therefore appears in the search index as future-dated relative to your stated as-of date — reports that Nearmap and EagleView reached a settlement resolving the Utah litigation dating to 2021, with confidential terms. Because the stated current date and the indexed article conflict, I flag this rather than assert it as a consummated event as of your April 26, 2026 date. If your true "today" is later (the system-level prompt states 2026-09-05), then the settlement is the operative status.

Sources: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-case-stayed/ ; https://finbets.websol.barchart.com (PRNewswire settlement item, May 27, 2026) ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Utah%20District%20Court/case/2%3A21-cv-00283

2. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. GAF Materials, LLC — D.N.J., No. 1:21-cv-10669 (Judge Renée Marie Bumb; Mag. Sharon A. King)

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: GAF Materials, LLC
• Jurisdiction / case number: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 1:21-cv-10669
• Filing date: May 4, 2021
• Patents: IPWatchdog's filing roundup for this case number lists nine asserted patents, including 10685149 (with 8542880, 8078436, 8670961, 8209152, 9514568, 10685149, 8170840, 10528960, 9129376). Accused product per the complaint analysis: GAF's "QuickMeasure" aerial roof-measurement tool.
• Status: Listed as pending ("Pending – Other Pending") in the most recent court-records snapshot located. This is the companion GAF action to the Utah case below; no final merits disposition was found in my searches. (A Banner Witcoff-hosted PTAB petition, IPR2022-01009, references both this case and the Utah GAF case.)

Sources: https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/12/ptab-filings-roundup-microsoft-battles-daedalus-blue-intel-gears-up-first-file-fight-electric-blanket-boogaloo/ ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-eagle-view-technologies-inc-et-al-v-gaf-materials-llc-[898701](/patent/898701) ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20Jersey%20District%20Court/case/1%3A21-cv-10669

3. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. GAF Materials, LLC — D. Utah, No. 2:22-cv-00215 (Judge Ted Stewart; Mag. Daphne A. Oberg)

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: GAF Materials, LLC
• Jurisdiction / case number: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2:22-cv-00215
• Filing date: March 28, 2022
• Patents: Nine patents / 69 asserted claims per the docket (GAF's motion to limit asserted claims, Nov. 2023); Google Patents litigation metadata ties 10685149B2 to this case. GAF describes it as "one of the two largest patent suits ever to have reached the Markman stage in this District."
• Status: Still active through at least mid-2025 — claim-construction hearing set for August 26, 2025 (Doc. 354, July 25, 2025). A litigation-tracking aggregator (Ex Parte) presently labels the case "Closed," but no dismissal/settlement order or judgment was located in my searches to confirm the basis or date of that closure. I cannot state the final outcome with confidence. Note also that GAF has pursued PTAB IPRs against the asserted family (e.g., IPR2022-01009; and the PTAB's Oct. 20, 2023 decision that all 20 claims of the related '880 patent were unpatentable was cited in the docket), but I did not confirm any IPR specifically directed to 10685149's claims.

Sources: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2022cv00215/[131262/277](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=131262-0277)/0.pdf ; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2022cv00215/[131262/354](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=131262-0354)/ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/utd/2:22-cv-00215/eagle-view-tech-v-gaf-materials-llc ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Utah%20District%20Court/case/2%3A22-cv-00215

Related matters that do NOT name 10685149B2 (excluded, to avoid confusion)

• EagleView v. Xactware/Verisk (D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025): The 2015 NJ suit that produced the $125M jury verdict and 2019 permanent injunction asserted family predecessors ('436, '840, '152, '880, '770, '732, '454, '376, '737) — not 10685149B2, which did not issue until June 16, 2020. It settled in Nov. 2021. Do not attribute this case to 10685149B2.
• Federal Circuit No. 24-1488, Eagle View v. Nearmap (affirmed Feb. 3, 2026): Concerns US 8670961B2 and US 8078436B2 only — not 10685149B2.
• No PTAB IPR or CAFC proceeding specifically directed to 10685149B2 was identified in these searches; I cannot confirm any validity challenge naming this exact patent.

Bottom line

Confidence notes: (1) The three cases above are the only district-court actions my searches tie to 10685149B2 itself. (2) I could not verify the current (2026) disposition of the two GAF cases from an authoritative docket, so their "status" entries are provisional. (3) The May 27, 2026 Nearmap settlement press release conflicts with the April 26, 2026 current date stated in your task; per the operating rules I have flagged, not suppressed, that search result.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) exist for US 10685149 B2. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) ingest on file lists no AIA trials for this patent, and targeted web searches (PTAB decision databases, Unified Patents, practitioner coverage) surfaced no IPR/PGR/CBM petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision directed at 10685149 itself. The defensive bottom line: this patent is entirely "UNTESTED" at the PTAB — no claim has been canceled, no claim has been sustained in an IPR, and no petitioner is estopped against it. A defendant cannot point to any IPR "win" on this patent, but equally faces no IPR-hardened claim set.

Per-proceeding detail

There are no proceedings to report individually. For completeness, the following near-miss and family-adjacent items were found and are excluded because they concern different patent numbers:

• IPR2022-01009 (Nearmap US v. EagleView, U.S. Patent 8,670,961 B2) and IPR2022-01090 (Nearmap US v. EagleView, U.S. Patent 8,078,436 B2) — both titled Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods, sharing a related specification. The PTAB instituted and found the challenged claims unpatentable under § 103; the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-02-03 in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (nonprecedential; Judges Chen et al.). These IPRs do not challenge any claim of 10685149 and have no direct preclusive effect on it. (Sources: IPWatchdog 2026-02-03; Vitallaw/IP Law Daily 2026-02-03; https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/02/03/federal-circuit-upholds-ptab-finding-aerial-imaging-patents-obvious/)
• IPR2024-00716 (U.S. Patent 10,671,648 B2) and IPR2024-00729 (U.S. Patent 9,182,657 B2) — Nearmap petitions against other EagleView patents; institution denied 2024-10-09/10. Not this patent. (Source: Haynes Boone press release 2024-10-15.)

No proceeding number for 10685149 was found on USPTO PTAB E2E, Unified Patents' per-patent challenge pages, or any docket reporting service, consistent with the ODP "no proceedings" flag.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of US 10685149 B2 is UNTESTED — no IPR has ever been instituted, so no claim is canceled and none has been "sustained" in a trial either. The patent remains prima facie valid and in full force. Its anticipated expiration is listed as 2029-05-15 (Google Patents metadata), so it is mid-life and commercially relevant.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has been filed on 10685149, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone on any ground against this patent. Every § 102/§ 103/§ 112 ground remains available to a future petitioner — subject to the critical § 315(b) timing bar. A would-be petitioner is barred from IPR if more than one year has elapsed since it was served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. The defendants already in suit — Nearmap US (Utah, 2:21-cv-00283, filed 2021-05-04) and GAF Materials (N.J., 1:21-cv-10669) — were served in 2021, so their § 315(b) windows closed in 2022 and they almost certainly cannot now petition against 10685149. A newly sued defendant not previously served would not be barred and could still petition within its own one-year window.

Pattern signals. The absence of an IPR on this specific patent is itself notable. Nearmap, a sophisticated and well-funded challenger, mounted IPRs on EagleView's other aerial-roof patents in 2022 (the '961/'436 IPRs it ultimately won at the CAFC in Feb. 2026) but apparently chose not to challenge 10685149 in the same window — even though 10685149 was asserted against it in the Utah case. That could reflect a litigation/claim-construction strategy (the Utah case was stayed and administratively closed 2025-08-25 pending the '961/'436 IPR appeals, per Patsnap), or a judgment that 10685149's pitch-determination claims were harder to knock out with the available art. Patent owner EagleView has shown it will fight IPRs hard (it defeated institution in IPR2024-00716/00729), and its counsel (Haynes Boone) publicly touted those institution-denial wins. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) is in the chain on this patent.

Cross-proceeding read-through. Although the '961/'436 IPRs do not touch 10685149, their CAFC affirmance is strategically useful: the Federal Circuit construed "calculate a pitch" and "determining a pitch" as requiring no particular accuracy (plain meaning; estimates qualify). Because 10685149 shares specification language with that family (its pitch-determination embodiments use the same "inches of rise per foot of run" disclosure), that construction could be persuasive in a future IPR on 10685149 — but it is persuasive authority only, not binding on these claims.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant already sued (Nearmap, GAF, or their privies): Do not expect to file an IPR on 10685149 — you are past the § 315(b) one-year bar. Your PTAB-based levers are (a) the already-instituted IPRs on family patents ('961/'436, affirmed 2026-02-03), which support the pending stay in Utah case 2:21-cv-00283 and may drive settlement pressure on the whole family, and (b) reexamination/certiorari-adjacent options are limited. Focus on claim construction and the family-wide obviousness theory that won at the PTAB/CAFC, arguing the same Littleworth + Linder + Middlebrook combination (or equivalent art) reads on 10685149's pitch-determination claims in the district court. Flag to the court the CAFC's 2026-02-03 holding that "calculate/determining a pitch" carries no accuracy requirement.

2. If you are a defendant not yet sued / within your own one-year window: The PTAB door is open. Commission a prior-art search now — the art that defeated the sibling '961/'436 patents is the natural starting point, and 10685149's claims have never been tested against it. File any IPR promptly after service (the § 315(b) clock starts at service of any complaint asserting this patent against you). Consider whether the envelope-tool/protractor-tool dependent features require additional art beyond the § 103 combination that won on the siblings.

3. Verify before relying: The ODP block is authoritative for "no proceedings on file," but check USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and Unified Patents' patent page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10685149) immediately before filing anything — a petition could have been filed after the most recent ODP ingest. If a new proceeding appears, the institution decision deadline is typically ~3 months after the PO preliminary response, and the FWD is statutorily due within 12 months of institution (extendable up to 6 months for good cause).

4. Documentation caveat: No FWD or institution decision exists to link because no proceeding exists. Do not cite the '961/'436 IPR decisions as if they invalidated 10685149 — they did not, and any brief that conflates the patents risks a sanctions-level accuracy problem.

I hit the search-step limit before I could pull the USPTO Assignment Center's own reel/frame entries, so I need to be transparent up front: I could not verify reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record names for this patent in this session. The reconstruction below is grounded in the authoritative Google Patents legal-events feed supplied with the patent text (which lists each conveyance type, assignor, and assignee with event dates) and the litigation dockets cited there. Where a field is unverifiable, I say so rather than guess.

Inventors

• Chris Pershing (sole named inventor).
  • Employer at time of filing: not directly stated in any assignment document I could retrieve; inferred as Eagle View Technologies, Inc. — Pershing is the company's co-founder/CTO and was the named assignor in the recorded "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" to Eagle View Technologies (per Google Patents legal events, dated 2018-06-26). The underlying application chain reaches back to his 2009 filing (12/467,244 → US 8,170,840) and a 2008-10-31 provisional (61/197,904).
  • Pattern check: single inventor, no multi-inventor mass-departure pattern; nothing suggestive of a portfolio fire-sale prelude.

Original assignee

• Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (recorded and current listed assignee; stylized "EagleView Technologies Inc").
  • Product/service: operating company in aerial roof measurement and property-insight services; its products embody the claimed pitch-determination/modeling/report workflow (the roof estimation reports described in Figs. 3A–3F are its commercial output). This is not a licensing shell.
  • Current status: operating. The most recent recorded events (2025 lien releases) leave ownership with EagleView Technologies, Inc., which also remains the named owner on Google Patents. EagleView's patent-holding group includes related operating entities Pictometry International Corp. and OmniEarth, Inc., which appear as co-assignors/co-assignees only in the 2025 lien documents.

Assignment timeline

Verification caveat: USPTO Assignment Center records (reel/frame, correspondent of record) were not directly retrievable within my search budget. The entries below are taken from the Google Patents legal-events feed reproduced in the patent text; dates are the event dates shown there. No reel/frame numbers and no correspondents are stated in that feed, and I will not fabricate them.

Recorded conveyances affecting US 10685149B2 (all on the 16/019,227 file):

• 2018-06-26 (event date) — Google Patents "Assigned to EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC." / "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"

  • Conveyance: Assignment of inventors' interest
  • Assignor: Chris Pershing
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in sources retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment recorded the same day the continuation application was filed; establishes EagleView's ownership of the application that issued as 10685149B2.

• 2018-08-14 (event date) — Reel/frame not available

  • Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (grantor of security interest)
  • Assignee: HPS Investment Partners, LLC (secured party)
  • Correspondent: not available in sources retrieved
  • Context: Leveraged-finance collateral grant (second-lien credit facility), not an ownership transfer.

• 2018-08-23 (event date) — Reel/frame not available

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (grantor)
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent (secured party)
  • Correspondent: not available in sources retrieved
  • Context: Companion first-lien collateral grant in the same 2018 recapitalization; again a lien, not a transfer of title.

• 2025-03-28 (event date) — Reel/frame not available

  • Conveyance: First Lien Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp. (grantors)
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. (secured party)
  • Correspondent: not available in sources retrieved
  • Context: New/refinanced first-lien security agreement covering the EagleView/Pictometry patent group.

• 2025-04-09 (event date) — Reel/frame not available

  • Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee: OmniEarth, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.; Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in sources retrieved
  • Context: Release of the (prior) first-lien security interest back to the operating companies.

• 2025-04-14 (event date) — Reel/frame not available

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in sources retrieved
  • Context: Release of the 2018 second-lien security interest; ownership remains with EagleView.

Bottom line: There are no recorded post-issuance ownership transfers. Every non-EagleView entity in the record (HPS, Morgan Stanley Senior Funding) is a lender holding or releasing a security interest. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. is and has remained the owner of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10685149B2
    2008 : Provisional filed by Pershing
    2009 : First family application filed
    2018 : Continuation filed by EagleView
         : Inventor assignment recorded
         : Second lien granted to HPS
         : First lien granted to Morgan Stanley
    2020 : Patent granted
    2021 : First infringement suits filed
    2025 : New first lien to Morgan Stanley
         : First lien released
         : Second lien released by HPS

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent never moved to an "IP Holdings / Licensing / Patents" LLC. The only non-EagleView assignees (HPS Investment Partners, LLC; Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent) appear solely as secured parties in recorded security agreements (2018-08-14, 2018-08-23, 2025-03-28) and as releasing parties (2025-04-09, 2025-04-14). A recorded security agreement is a collateral lien, not a conveyance of title, and the documents are captioned as security agreements/releases rather than assignments.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No entity on the Acacia/Marathon/Intellectual Ventures/IPNav/Wi-LAN/Conversant/Spangenberg/RPX/Unified Patents NPE lists appears as owner. The current owner, EagleView, is an operating company that itself appears in Unified Patents litigation data as a plaintiff (Utah 2:22-cv-00215, 2:21-cv-00283; N.J. 1:21-cv-10669).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / unverifiable. Correspondent-of-record data was not available in the sources retrieved. No finding either way.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The 2018 first-lien/second-lien pair (recorded nine days apart) is the standard dual-tranche leveraged-finance structure, not a chain of chained LLC transfers. No ownership passed through multiple LLCs in any 24-month window.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The first suits naming this patent (per Google Patents litigation data) were filed in 2021–2022, roughly three to four years after the 2018 lien grants and well after the 2020-06-16 grant. The 2025 releases post-date the litigation. No transfer was timed within six months of a first suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 filing by EagleView or any party in the chain was identified.

7. Privateering — Not present. EagleView asserts directly; no operating-company-to-NPE handoff is recorded, and no SEC/Patent Progress/EFF evidence of privateering was identified.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at the operating company itself.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The assignment record shows Eagle View Technologies, Inc. as both original and current owner; every other recorded conveyance (2018-08-14 to HPS, 2018-08-23 and 2025-03-28 to Morgan Stanley, with 2025 releases) is lender collateral documentation rather than an ownership transfer. EagleView ships aerial roof-estimation products embodying the claimed pitch-determination/model/report workflow and has asserted this patent directly against aerial-imagery competitors in Utah District Court (2:21-cv-00283, 2:22-cv-00215) and New Jersey District Court (1:21-cv-10669) per Unified Patents litigation data cited on the Google Patents record — the classic operating-company-versus-competitor pattern, with no NPE in the chain.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10685149); reel/frame numbers and correspondents should be pulled from the recorded PDFs there to complete the diligence record, since they were not retrievable in this session.

I'll research the prior art citations listed on US10685149B2. Let me search several authoritative sources.

Let me get the actual citations list and the claims from USPTO/Google Patents sources.

I need the exact claims text and the backward citations for US10685149B2. Let me try several targeted searches.

I have to stop searching now (step limit reached), so I'll synthesize the analysis from the authoritative sources already retrieved — primarily the Google Patents record for US10685149B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10685149B2/en) and the Unified Patents "Patent Art" listing for this exact patent (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/[10685149](/patent/10685149)), cross-checked against my knowledge of the EagleView continuation family (US 8,170,840 → 8,818,770 → 9,129,376 → 15/832,363 → 16/019,227).

Important caveats before the analysis

1. I could not pull the USPTO's official "References Cited" (PTO/SB/08) page directly — no live USPTO Patent Center/Global Dossier fetch was available in my toolset. The citations below are reconstructed from Google Patents' citation graph and Unified Patents' "Patent Art (132)" list for US10685149B2, which is a superset (it mixes examiner-cited art with family/similar-patent art). Treat the list as "art associated with this patent and its prosecution family" rather than the verified face-of-the-patent reference list. Verify against USPTO Patent Center before relying on this in a proceeding.
2. The granted claim text of US10685149B2 was not captured in the supplied Google Patents fetch (it truncates mid-description) or in search snippets. Per the earlier summary section, the independent claims are representative of the parent '376/'770 patents in the same family: a system claim, a method claim, and a computer-readable-medium claim, each centered on (a) displaying an aerial image of a building roof having planar sections, (b) displaying an operator-manipulable pitch-determination marker (protractor-arm tool; dependent variants add the two-surface "envelope" tool aligned to a ridge line), (c) receiving the operator's manipulation aligning the marker with a planar section, (d) calculating the section's pitch from the marker's configuration relative to the registered image/reference grid, (e) storing the pitch, and (f) generating/outputting an annotated roof-estimate report. Claim-feature mapping below is therefore representative, not verbatim.
3. § 102 analysis assumes the effective prior-art date of the challenged claims is the Oct. 31, 2008 provisional priority date; any reference published or filed before that date is at least prima facie § 102 prior art.

Most relevant prior-art references for US10685149B2

Ranked roughly by relevance to the pitch-determination claims:

1. US 2008/0262789 A1 — "Aerial roof estimation system and method" (Pershing; EagleView)

• Full citation: Pershing, C., Aerial Roof Estimation System and Method, US Patent Application Publication US 2008/0262789 A1; filed Apr. 16, 2007 (application 11/787,194); published Oct. 23, 2008. (Same subject matter later granted as US 8,670,961 B2, "Aerial roof estimation systems and methods," issued Mar. 11, 2014.)
• Description: EagleView's predecessor disclosure of semi-automated aerial roof estimation: obtain geo-coded aerial images of a building, register images, operator identifies roof features/planes, system determines dimensions/pitch/area, and generates a roof estimate report annotated with roof-section measurements. It is the closest known commercial/technical ancestor of the claimed tooling.
• § 102 analysis: Published ~1 week before the Oct. 31, 2008 priority date → squarely § 102(a)(1) (pre-AIA § 102(b) is not available because the one-year grace bar date is Oct. 31, 2009; the Oct. 2008 publication is before the critical date only in the § 102(a) sense... under pre-AIA law it is § 102(a) prior art). It likely anticipates broad versions of the method/system claims that recite only display aerial image → determine pitch of planar section → generate annotated report, because it discloses all of those steps. It does not disclose the specific interactive "pitch-determination marker"/protractor-arm GUI control or the envelope tool, so it is weaker against claims whose scope is limited to those UI features. Under § 103 it is the natural primary reference.

2. WO 00/29806 A2 — "Method for measuring the surfaces of a house roof"

• Full citation: Method for Measuring the Surfaces of a House Roof, PCT publication WO 00/29806 A2; filed Nov. 5, 1998; published May 25, 2000.
• Description: Photogrammetric method for measuring the roof surfaces of a house from aerial imagery — computing planar roof-section areas/slopes from stereo/overlapping images without on-site measurement. This is the core foreign-art reference for aerial roof mensuration.
• § 102 analysis: Well before the 2008 priority date → § 102(a)/(b) art. It anticipates the measurement portion of a broad claim (pitch/area of roof sections from aerial images) but does not disclose the interactive pitch-marker user interface, the 3D reference-grid registration of the GUI, or the annotated report with pitch callouts. Most probative against any claim not requiring the specific marker control.

3. US 7,500,391 B2 — "System and method for identifying the solar potential of rooftops"

• Full citation: System and Method for Identifying the Solar Potential of Rooftops, US 7,500,391 B2; filed ~Apr. 26, 2006; granted Mar. 10, 2009.
• Description: Analyzes aerial/satellite imagery (including oblique views) to derive rooftop geometry — area, slope/orientation — to compute solar potential; discloses image-based roof-plane modeling and output of per-roof-section data.
• § 102 analysis: Filed before Oct. 31, 2008 → § 102(a)(2) art even if one disputes publication timing. Discloses determining roof-section geometry/slope from images and generating output data, but not the operator-driven pitch-marker GUI or roof-repair-report format. Potential anticipation of the broadest data-processing claims only.

4. US 7,424,133 B2 — "Method and apparatus for capturing, geolocating and measuring oblique images" (Pictometry)

• Full citation: Schultz et al., Method and Apparatus for Capturing, Geolocating and Measuring Oblique Images, US 7,424,133 B2; filed Nov. 7, 2002; granted Sept. 9, 2008.
• Description: The foundational Pictometry oblique-imagery patent — calibrated oblique aerial capture with pixel-to-ground measurement and geo-referencing that enables remote measurement of buildings.
• § 102 analysis: Granted Sept. 2008 → § 102(a)/(b) art. Provides the image-registration/geo-referencing backbone that the claimed system assumes ("registered image / reference grid"). It does not disclose roof-pitch-specific GUI markers; relevant to claims whose image-calibration/registration steps are broadly written, less relevant to the marker-manipulation limitation.

5. US 2003/0147553 A1 → US 7,133,551 B2 — "Semi-automatic reconstruction method of 3-D building models using building outline segments" (Chen)

• Full citation: Chen et al., Semi-automatic Reconstruction Method of 3-D Building Models Using Building Outline Segments, US 2003/0147553 A1 (published Aug. 7, 2003) and its grant US 7,133,551 B2.
• Description: Semi-automatic 3D building reconstruction from aerial images in which a user traces/outlines building-roof segments in an image; the system back-projects the 2D outline into 3D using image geometry. Structurally analogous to the claimed "operator traces planar roof sections → system builds 3D model in a shared grid."
• § 102 analysis: Prior art under § 102(a)/(b). Anticipates the interactive outline-tracing + 3D-model-construction aspects of the claims (the wire-frame model construction flow of Figs. 6A–6D / claim features reciting operator-specified roof features added to a 3D model). Does not disclose the dedicated pitch marker (protractor/envelope) or pitch-annotated report generation, so it maps primarily to the model-construction dependent features rather than the pitch-calculation limitation.

6. US 5,247,356 A — "Method and apparatus for mapping and measuring land" (Ciampa)

• Full citation: Ciampa, Method and Apparatus for Mapping and Measuring Land, US 5,247,356 A; filed Feb. 13, 1992; granted Sept. 21, 1993.
• Description: Aerial-photogrammetry land/building measurement with interactive display of image coordinates and computation of physical distances/areas.
• § 102 analysis: Old § 102(b) art. Relevant to image-calibration and on-screen measurement features in broad claims; lacks roof-pitch GUI tooling and roof-report specifics.

7. CA 2,191,954 A1 — "Method for the collection, analysis, measurement and storage of geographical data"

• Full citation: Canadian application CA 2,191,954 A1, laid open ~June 1996 (priority June 2, 1994 per the family).
• Description: Airborne data-collection/measurement system for geographic features including structures.
• § 102 analysis: § 102(b) art; tangential — background for aerial data acquisition. Possible anticipation only of trivial preamble-level features.

8. US 7,343,268 B2 — "Three-dimensional electronic map data creation method"

• Full citation: Three-dimensional Electronic Map Data Creation Method, US 7,343,268 B2; filed June 19, 2001; granted Mar. 11, 2008.
• Description: Generation of 3D map data (building models) from aerial images using feature matching.
• § 102 analysis: § 102(a)/(b) art; maps to registration/3D-model generation features, not the pitch-marker GUI.

9. US 7,376,284 B2 — "System, computer program and method for 3D object measurement, modeling and mapping from single imagery"

• Full citation: System, Computer Program and Method for 3D Object Measurement, Modeling and Mapping from Single Imagery, US 7,376,284 B2; filed Jan. 15, 2004; granted May 20, 2008.
• Description: 3D measurement/modeling of objects from a single image using geometric constraints — including roof planes in some embodiments.
• § 102 analysis: § 102(a)/(b) art; strongest against single-image measurement features; no interactive pitch-marker disclosure.

10. US 8,531,472 B2 — "Systems and methods for rapid three-dimensional modeling with real façade texture" (Pictometry)

• Full citation: Systems and Methods for Rapid Three-Dimensional Modeling with Real Façade Texture, US 8,531,472 B2; filed Dec. 3, 2007; granted Sept. 10, 2013.
• Description: Rapid 3D building modeling from oblique imagery with texture mapping.
• § 102 analysis: Filed before Oct. 31, 2008 → potential § 102(a)(2) art (published 2013, so pre-AIA § 102(e) against the 2008 priority date requires the earlier filing date — present here). Relevant to 3D-model-generation features; no pitch-marker GUI.

11. US 8,588,547 B2 — "Cut-line steering methods for forming a mosaic image of a geographical area" (EagleView/Pictometry)

• Full citation: Cut-line Steering Methods for Forming a Mosaic Image of a Geographical Area, US 8,588,547 B2; filed Aug. 4, 2008; granted Nov. 19, 2013.
• Description: Image-mosaic generation with seam/cut-line steering — same-assignee aerial-imagery processing art.
• § 102 analysis: Filed pre-2008 priority date → potential § 102(a)(2)/(e) art. Background for image acquisition; unlikely to touch pitch-determination features.

12. Remaining cited/associated art (segmentation & automated-recognition cluster)

These bear on dependent claims directed to automatic feature recognition/registration (spec §§ on "all or some of the functions … performed automatically"), not on the operator-marker pitch claims: US 7,327,880 B2 (Local Watershed Operators for Image Segmentation, filed Mar. 11, 2004), US 7,639,842 B2 (filed May 2, 2002), US 6,980,690 B1 (filed Jan. 19, 2000), US 5,983,010 A (filed Jan. 23, 1996), US 8,477,190 B2, US 2003/0233310 A1 (business-transaction method), US 2002/0143669 A1 (supply-chain inventory method), US 2011/0187713 A1 (Geometric Correction of Rough Wireframe Models Derived from Photographs), US 2013/0346020 A1 (building floor area), US 2013/0262029 A1 (property risk assessment), US 2013/0226515 A1 (building wall area), and US 2,791,151 (Aerotriangulation with Convergent Photography, 1953). These are chiefly § 103 secondary references.

Bottom line on anticipation

• No single reference found in this review squarely discloses the complete independent-claim combination — specifically the interactive pitch-determination marker (adjustable arm whose on-image configuration is translated, via the registered 3D reference grid, into a pitch value) followed by an annotated roof-estimate report. That GUI-marker combination appears to be the claim's distinguishing core.
• The closest anticipation candidates for the broadest claims are US 2008/0262789 A1 (EagleView's own earlier roof-estimation disclosure, § 102(a) art) and WO 00/29806 A2 (aerial roof-surface measurement). Both likely read on a method of determining roof-section pitch from aerial images and reporting it if that is all the independent claim requires, but each lacks the marker-control and reference-grid translation limitations.
• US 2003/0147553 A1 / US 7,133,551 B2 (semi-automatic outline-based 3D reconstruction) is the strongest art against the feature-tracing/3D-model-construction dependent features; US 7,500,391 B2 and US 7,424,133 B2 cover the image-derived roof geometry and calibrated oblique measurement prerequisites.
• Because the granted claim text of this specific B2 grant was not verifiable in the available sources, all claim-specific mappings above are stated at the level of the family's representative independent claims and should be re-run against the actual claims (USPTO Patent Center / Google Patents "Claims" tab) and the actual SB/08 cited-reference list before any IPR or litigation position is built on them.

Preliminary note on inputs

The "Current task" directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but no Prior Art section was included in the materials provided to me — the supplied prior sections are the Patent Summary and the PTAB-challenges analysis. I have therefore reconstructed the prior-art landscape from (a) the art of record in the family-wide IPRs identified in the PTAB section (IPR2022-01009 / IPR2022-01090 against the sibling '961/'436 patents), (b) references cited on the face of the family members (surfaced via Justia's "Patent History" page for US10685149 and the PDF of the child US11030358B2), and (c) the family claim text made of record in district-court pleadings. Claim-text caveat carried over from the summary: I could not verify the verbatim claims of the B2 grant in the available sources; the analysis below uses the independently verified claim language of the immediate parent US 9,129,376 (claims 17–25) and grandparent US 8,818,770 (claims 21–26), which recite the same "pitch determination marker / protractor tool / envelope tool" subject matter and which district-court filings describe as representative of this family. Any limitation-by-limitation mapping should be re-checked against the actual B2 claims before filing.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 10685149 B2

1. Presumed representative claim scope (family-verified)

The claims of this family center on a semi-automatic, operator-driven roof-pitch GUI:

• Method claim (representative, cf. '376 claim 17 / '770 claim 21): displaying on a visual display a photographic aerial image of a roof having a pitch; displaying a pitch determination marker (an interactive UI control) overlying the image; moving at least a portion of the marker from a first to a second position in response to user input so that it aligns with a pitch/sloped edge of the roof (or, in the envelope-tool variant, lies "substantially atop" adjacent roof planes with a spine aligned to a ridge line); calculating/determining the pitch from the marker's configuration/position; storing the pitch; and generating and outputting a roof estimate report containing one or more top-plan views of a roof model annotated with slope/area/edge-length values, provided for repair/construction of the roof.
• System claim (representative, cf. '376 claim 20): processor + memory executing instructions to adjust the overlaid marker in response to user manipulation, calculate the pitch based on the adjustment, store it, and generate/output the report.
• Dependent themes: protractor tool (one movable arm); envelope tool (spine → ridge line; two surfaces → two adjacent planes); on-screen numeric pitch display overlaid on the image or in an adjacent menu; deriving other planes' pitches from one measured pitch plus symmetry/architectural assumptions.

The inventive "hook" is not photogrammetry per se (well known since the 1990s) but the interactive, graphical, operator-aligned pitch tool fused with the report-generation backend.

2. Prior-art building blocks (all pre-2008-10-31, i.e., before the earliest priority date)

Combination of record with the strongest legal pedigree: Littleworth + Linder + Middlebrook — the exact combination the PTAB found rendered the sibling '961/'436 claims obvious under § 103(a), affirmed by the Federal Circuit on Feb. 3, 2026 (Eagle View Techs. v. Nearmap US, No. 24-1488; IPWatchdog 2026-02-03). That decision is not binding on the '149 claims, but it is highly persuasive because the patents share a specification and the CAFC there adopted constructions of "calculate a pitch" / "determining a pitch" that reject any accuracy requirement — constructions that would apply with equal force here.

3. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A person with a B.S. in computer science, GIS/geomatics, or civil/structural engineering (or equivalent experience), ~2–4 years working on photogrammetric or CAD-based measurement software, conversant with aerial-imagery acquisition/calibration, 3-D model construction, and graphical user-interface design for measurement tools, and familiar with roofing-industry conventions (pitch expressed as inches of rise per 12 inches of run).

4. Lead combination: Littleworth + Linder + Middlebrook

4.1 Limitation mapping (representative claims)

1. Photographic aerial image of a roof displayed in a GUI — Littleworth (vertical + oblique aerial photos used for modeling); Linder (textbook workflow of displaying and processing such imagery).
2. Roof model / pitch derived from images — Littleworth's 3-D as-built models, with roof planes digitized "indicating their pitch"; the PTAB expressly credited the theory that including a pitched roof in a 3-D model generated from aerial images "indicates that [the] system made a determination of the pitch of the roof." '961 Decision, 2023 WL 8651434, at *26.
3. Interactive, user-manipulated graphical marker / angle-measurement control — Middlebrook teaches the standard CAD paradigm: a user draws and drags graphical entities in a GUI, and the software measures and displays distances, dimensions, and angular dimensions from those entities (Board found Middlebrook teaches "calculat[ing] distances and dimensions" and "angular dimensions (i.e., pitch)" from a 3-D model). Applying a protractor-style angle tool to the sloped edge of a modeled roof plane is an ordinary CAD operation.
4. Calculating pitch from the marker configuration, storing it — Littleworth (pitch known from digitizing roof detail) plus Middlebrook (automatic dimension/angle computation from graphical geometry); under the CAFC's Feb. 2026 construction, no particular accuracy is required and estimation/approximation suffices.
5. Generating/outputting an annotated top-plan report for repair/construction — Littleworth's as-built deliverables and '303's cost-estimation reporting supply this; the '149's own specification describes the report as conventional output flowing from the model.

4.2 Motivation and reasonable expectation of success

• Same field, complementary disclosures. Littleworth/Linder solve how to get a measurable 3-D roof model from overlapping aerial photos (calibration, correlation, triangulation). Middlebrook solves how a non-expert user interacts graphically with a 3-D model to obtain and read out measurements. A PHOSITA building roof-measurement software in 2008 would treat photogrammetry texts and a mainstream CAD manual as two halves of one toolkit: extract geometry photogrammetrically, then measure it with standard interactive CAD tools.
• Known problem, known solution. The problem the '149 addresses — letting an operator determine a roof plane's slope without a ladder — was already solved in Littleworth (roof detail digitized "indicating their pitch") and in every CAD package's angular-dimension tool (Middlebrook ch. on dimensions). Combining them is the "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" that KSR (550 U.S. 398, 416–17 (2007)) holds obvious when it "does no more than yield predictable results."
• Design incentive / market pressure. Roofing estimators wanted faster, cheaper, remote takeoffs; the photogrammetric model already contained the geometry, so overlaying a mouse-driven protractor that snaps to/aligns with a modeled roof edge and displays rise-over-run is an obvious UI affordance, not an inventive step.
• The CAFC's 2026 construction removes the main defense. Eagle View's only preserved argument on the sibling patents — that "calculate/determine a pitch" requires accuracy and that Littleworth does not expressly disclose a pitch calculation — was rejected. The court held the Board reasonably found pitch calculation obvious from Littleworth alone or Littleworth + Middlebrook, because the calculation "is performed as part of the three-dimensional model generation, which is based on the image analysis." That reasoning transfers directly to the '149 pitch-marker claims: the pitch is computed from the marker's alignment with geometry that itself came from the image analysis.

5. Alternative/additional combinations

5.1 Littleworth + Middlebrook (without Linder)

Where a challenger wants to avoid Linder's stereoscopic-pair complexities (which Eagle View's expert litigated hard in the IPRs), Littleworth alone supplies the multi-image roof model and pitch determination; Middlebrook alone supplies the interactive GUI measurement tool and report/dimensioning output. This is the cleaner two-reference core for the GUI-marker limitations.

5.2 Littleworth/Linder/Middlebrook + examiner-cited '551 and/or '303

• US 7,133,551 ('551) bolsters the semi-automatic, operator-assisted reconstruction of 3-D building models from user-drawn/outline segments — directly relevant to claims that require an operator to trace/adjust roof features and to the wire-frame model review display.
• US 7,373,303 ('303) bolsters the report limitation: generating a roof-estimation/cost report from measured roof geometry. If a challenger fears the report-generation tail of the claim is under-supported by Littleworth/Middlebrook alone, '303 supplies the annotated, quantified roof-report output.

5.3 Interaction-specific art for the marker UI (if a defendant wants redundancy)

The dependent "protractor tool" and "envelope tool" features are standard CAD/3-D-modeling manipulations: drawing a two-arm angle entity, dragging one arm to an edge (Middlebrook), and fitting a two-surface prism/spine to a roof ridge (an elementary 3-D modeling operation on the roof planes Littleworth reconstructs). A challenger should also mine the Pictometry Electronics Field Study guide (cited on the face of the '149) and comparable pre-2008 Pictometry operator-measurement manuals, which taught operator-guided graphical measurement of roof features over aerial imagery — evidence that the interactive paradigm itself was conventional in the aerial-roof-measurement niche before 2008.

6. Graham-factor and rebuttal considerations

• Secondary considerations. No evidence of long-felt need, industry praise, copying, or commercial success specific to the pitch-marker UI was located in the record; Eagle View's litigation position has been defensive (claim construction/validity) rather than based on objective indicia. The near-identical tool was not adopted industry-wide as a standard prior to suit, which weakens any non-obviousness showing. Caveat: a complete analysis would require discovery into licensing/success, which is not available here.
• Teaching-away / combination risks to anticipate. Eagle View would likely argue: (i) Littleworth/Linder are automatic/scientific photogrammetry, unconcerned with a semi-automatic consumer-grade GUI; (ii) Middlebrook's angular dimensions are generic CAD annotations "not tied to the pitch of a roof" (Eagle View's exact argument in IPR2022-01009, per the oral-hearing transcript); and (iii) the claims require the marker to be aligned with the roof in the photographic image itself, not merely in a CAD model. Responses: (i) Littleworth's own process was operator-assisted digitizing ("roof detail was digitized"), so semi-automatic operator input is in the primary reference; (ii) applying an angular-dimension tool to a roof-plane edge is an obvious use of a generic tool, and KSR forbids ignoring a reference's obvious applications; (iii) Littleworth's operators worked on digital images displayed on screens — aligning a graphical angle entity with an image-displayed roof edge is the same act Middlebrook teaches in CAD, applied to an image backdrop; a PHOSITA would understand the on-screen overlay as a proxy for model geometry.
• Claim-scope caution. Because the B2 grant is a continuation, its claims could have been narrowed (e.g., to the envelope tool, or to concurrent multi-image display) during prosecution after 2015. Any final obviousness brief must map limitations against the B2 claims as issued, and the combination may need adjustment if, for example, the claims require concurrent projection into a second image (which would point back to the sibling "Concurrent Display" patent US 9,135,737 art, not the pitch art analyzed here).

7. Bottom line

The most defensible § 103 case against US 10685149 B2 is the family-proven combination of Littleworth (1992) + Linder (2003) + Middlebrook (2004), optionally reinforced with US 7,133,551 (semi-automatic model building) and US 7,373,303 (report/cost output). That combination (i) supplies every substantive limitation of the representative pitch-marker claims under the CAFC's Feb. 3, 2026 constructions of "calculate/determine a pitch," (ii) has already survived exacting PTAB and CAFC scrutiny as to the same disclosure-to-pitch-inference theory the '149 claims depend on, and (iii) rests on a straightforward KSR-style motivation — extract roof geometry photogrammetrically (Littleworth/Linder), then let an operator measure and read out pitch with standard interactive CAD tools (Middlebrook). The realistic weak point is the GUI-marker-over-image limitation, which is not squarely addressed by the adjudicated sibling-claim record; a petitioner should therefore lead with the operator-assisted digitizing in Littleworth and pre-2008 Pictometry operator-measurement manuals to show that interactive, graphical pitch measurement over aerial imagery was itself conventional, reserving Middlebrook for the angle-measurement-and-readout mechanics.

Verification reminders (from the PTAB section): no IPR has ever been instituted on 10685149 itself, so this theory is untested at the PTAB; the § 315(b) one-year bar has already run for Nearmap and GAF (sued 2021) but not for any newly served defendant; and the '961/'436 IPR decisions must not be cited as if they invalidated this patent — they are persuasive family-adjacent authority only. Before filing, pull the actual B2 claims from USPTO Patent Center/Google Patents PDF and confirm the limitation set, since the claim text could not be verified verbatim in the sources available for this analysis.